What, if Anything, is Regressed About Hypnotic Age Regression? A …bromanfulksj/Nash - What if...

Psychological Bulletin1987. VoT 102. Nq. 1,42-52

Copyright 1987 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.0033-2909/87/J00.75

What, if Anything, is Regressed About Hypnotic Age Regression?A Review of the Empirical Literature

Michael NashUniversity of Tennessee

The concept of psychological regression is an important one for the fields of developmental andclinical psychology. Many have cited the dramatic and seemingly compelling childlike performances

of hypnotically age-regressed individuals as evidence that under some circumstances, it is possible

for an individual to return to a developmentally previous mode of psychological functioning. la

the present article, I review 60 years of empirical studies that have investigated whether there is areinstatement of childhood psychological or physiological faculties during hypnotic age regression,

Results suggest that if regression is defined as the extent to which hypnotized subjects conform tochildhood norms and control subjects do not, then the mental and physiological activity of hypnoti-

cally age-regressed subjects is not regressed; it appears to be essentially adult Although findings

might be more compatible with a broader definition of regression as the appearance of primitive

mentation or the use of less sequential modes of information processing during hypnosis, there

is no evidence for a literal reinstatement of childhood functioning during hypnotic-age-regression

procedures.

In age regression, a hypnotized subject is typically given sug-gestions to relive an event that occurred at an earlier age and to"be and feel like" a child of that age. In the case of a highlyhypnotizable adult, given suggestions to regress to childhood,the changes in behavior and demeanor are often dramatic. Earlytheorists embraced these performances as compelling evidenceof an actual or at least partial regression to a past psychologicalor physiological state (Erickson & (Cubic, 1941; Weitzenhoffer& Andre, 1957). Over the past 60 years, a great deal of researchhas examined hypnotically age-regressed subjects on a broadrange of variables (see Barber, 1962; Gebhard, 1961; Yates,1961, for earlier reviews). The question at issue is, Does hyp-notic age regression enable subjects to exhibit developmentallyprevious modes of mental functioning?

This question is relevant not only to an understanding of hyp-

nosis but also to the concept of psychological regression itself, asit impacts both developmental and clinical psychology. Workingentirely outside the field of hypnosis, some developmental psy-chologists examining the cognitive functioning of children andelderly people have suggested that a genuine regression to a pre-vious level of psychological functioning is possible and, in fact,quite common (Miller, 1976; Papalia & Beilby, 1974). Othersdisagree (Dasen, 1977; Click, 1975; Piaget & Inbelder, 1969).Similarly, many psychoanalytic practioners and theorists holdregression to be a profoundly important curative factor in theprocess of psychotherapy (Balmt, 1968; Fromm-Reichman,1950;Tuttman, 1982; Winnicott, 1971). Yet other dynamic the-orists believe that this type of psychological and physiological

I gratefully acknowledge Richard Lundy and Michael Jay Diamond

for their invaluable comments on earlier drafts of this article.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mi-chael Nash, Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee, Knox-

vflle, Tennessee 37996-0900.

regression is simply impossible (Gill, in Tuttman, 1982, p. 189;Spitz, 1965) or certainly not a core curative factor in psycho-

therapy (A. Freud, 1969).

Hypnotically suggested age regression is one methodological

vehicle for testing whether genuine psychlogjcal regression isindeed possible. If it could be shown that hypnotically age-re-gressed subjects reexperience the events of a suggested age withunusual accuracy and return to some developmentally previousmode of psychological or physiological functioning typical ofthat age, then the possibility of a psychological regression wouldbe demonstrated. This finding would lend some support tothose who contend that regression is possible and that it is animportant feature of normal maturation and intensive psycho-therapy.

All three reviews of the hypnotic-age-regression literature

were written over 25 years ago and published within a year ofeach other (Barber, 1962; Gebhard, 1961; Yates, 1961). Eventhough these authors reviewed the same literature, their conclu-sions differed. On one hand, Barber (1962) concluded that thereis no return of previous physiological or psychological function-ing during hypnotic age regression and that the response ofthese subjects is no more childlike than is that of subjects whoare role playing. On the other hand, Gebhard and, to a greaterextent, Yates, concluded that there is some evidence for reacti-vation of archaic structures, especially in the realm of physio-logical response and cognition. Sound methodological adviceby all three authors has proven enormously influential in im-

proving the design and rigor of investigations published sincethese reviews. By systematically reviewing pertinent early andmore recent empirical work in the present article, I aim to fur-

ther clarify what (if anything) is regressed about hypnotic ageregression.

In evaluating research on this question, one might refer to aconcise two-part criterion for genuine age regression offered by

42

HYPNOTIC AGE REGRESSION 43

Parrish, Lundy, and Leibowitz (1969); they stated that regres-

sion can best be established "when responses typical of children

but not of adults are produced under (hypnotic) age regression,

and when these same responses are not produced under a wak-

ing suggestion" (p. 699).

By accepting this criterion, one is essentially adopting Bar-

ber's (1962) reasonable notion that hypnotic age regression

must enable subjects to transcend normal volitional capacity if

it is to be considered genuine (i.e., hypnotic behavior must be

observed to be more accurately childlike than is "normally"

possible). But it is important here to comment on the subjective

reality of regression for hypnotized individuals. An enduring

finding in this literature is that when measures of subjective ex-

perience are taken, hypnotized subjects report that the experi-

ence of being a child is compellingly "real." These reports far

exceed those of unhypnotized control subjects and have noth-

ing to do with whether the hypnotic performance was observ-

ably and genuinely childlike (O'Connell, Shor, Orne, 1970;

Ome, 1951, 1979). In fact, there is some reason to believe

(Ome, 1951, 1959; Perry & Walsh, 1978; Young, 1940) that

hypnotic subjects become so absorbed in their experience of

being a child that there is a loss of critical judgment, resulting

in anachronisms that are obvious to unhypnotized individuals

(e.g., while regressed to the age of 6 years, a hypnotized subject

writes, "I am conducting a psychological experiment which will

assess my psychological capacity" in childlike printing but with

perfect spelling; Orne, 1951). Although the "believed-in" qual-

ity of being a child is a fascinating and clinically useful aspect

of hypnotic age regression, I follow the lead of other reviewers

in examining whether there is a measurable return of childlike

functioning during hypnotic age regression.

Table 1 evaluates all age-regression studies reviewed on the

basis of the Parrish et al. (1969) two-part criterion and orga-

nizes the literature into four processes that could conceivably

be reinstated during hypnotic age regression—physiology, cog-

nition, perception, and personality. The adequacy of experi-

mental controls is evaluated according to guidelines for such

research suggested by Barber (1961, 1962,1965), O'Connell et

al. (1970), and Orne (1971, 1979). Tables 2 and 3 summarize

the results of these studies. Some studies assessed regression

across different types of dependent measures. These cases are

listed (and counted) more than once.

The Reinstatement of Childlike Physiological Responses

Reinstatement oflnfantlikeElectroencephalogram (EEC)

Several studies have examined the EEG patterns of adults re-

gressed to the early months of life to determine whether there

is a return of the slow, arrhythmic brain waves found during

infancy. Three early studies found no change from the normal

adult EEG patterns (McCranie, Crasilneck, & Teter, 1955;

Schwartz, Bickford, & Rasmussen, 1955; True & Stephenson,

1951). In a recent work, a Russian investigator (Raikov, 1983)

claimed that childlike EEG patterns can return during hypnotic

regression, but this study was plagued with methodological

difficulties, including inadequate childhood norms, small sam-

ples, noncounterbalanced designs, inadequate or nonexistent

controls, and no report of statistical analyses. At present, there

is no convincing evidence that infantlike EEG patterns are rein-

stated during hypnotic age regression.

Reinstatement of Previous Neuropathology

Early clinical reports of the return of abnormal EEG, shifts in

visual field, and fainting during age regression (Erickson, 1937;

Ford & Yeager, 1948; LeCron, 1952; Weitzenhofier & Andre,

1957) have not been replicated in the laboratory (Mesel & Led-

ford, 1959; Schwartz et al., 1955). In Schwarz et al.'s study, 16

patients with organically based seizure disorders and 10 pa-

tients referred for EEG were hypnotized and regressed. During

hypnosis, even though some patients displayed seizurelike be-

haviors, there were no changes in EEGs.

Reinstatement of Childlike Reflexes and Ablation of

Conditioned Responses Learned as an Adult

Three studies (Gidro-Frank & Bowersbuch, 1948; McCranie

etal., 1955; True & Stephenson, 1951) found that when hypno-

tized subjects were regressed to I to 5 months of age, there ap-

peared to be a return of the Babinski response (upturning of the

big toe in response to plantar stimulation, and fanning of the

toes, usually associated with disturbances in the pyramidal

tracts and seen in infancy because of incomplete myelinization

of these tracts). But the Babinski response can be elicited with

normal adults under conditions of depressed musde fame, such

as sleep, drowsiness, and narcosis (DeLong, 19S8). The relax-

ation and decreased muscle tone elicited during hypnosis has

been sufficient at times to produce a Babinski response without

suggested age regression (Jolowicz & Heyer, 1931; Sarbin,

1956).

Some studies claimed the return of other childlike "reflexes"

or the ablation of recently acquired conditioned responses by

means of hypnotic age regression (Edmonston, 1960, Forrest,

Stevens, & Dimond, 1973; Gakkebush, Polinkovskii, & Fun-

diller, 1930; LeCron, 1952;McCranie&Crasilneck, 1955; Rai-

kov, 1980,1982). All these studies failed to appreciate that sub-

jects can voluntarily inhibit or perform supposedly "involun-

tary" responses without the aid of hypnosis (Hflgard &

Marquis, 1940). In short, there has been no adequately designed

investigation of the return of reflexes or ablation of conditioned

responses during hypnotic age regression.

With examination of Table 2, it is clear that the design and

methodology of studies using physiological indexes of regres-

sion are particularly weak. Of 14 studies using more than 1 sub-

ject, 6 found negative results, and 8 found positive results. All

14 studies failed to meet minimum standards for experimental

control. With no rigorously controlled studies and the mixed

results of extant investigations, it must be concluded that there

is no research evidence for a return of childlike physiological

functioning during hypnotic age regression.

Cognitive and Memory Processes

Over the past 60 years, investigators have focused a great deal

of attention on two purported characteristics of hypnotic age

44 MICHAEL NASH

Table 1Methods and Results ofHypnotic-Age-Regression Studies

Study

Gakkebush, Folinkovskii,&Fnndiller(I930)

Erickson(1937)

Ford &Yeager( 1948)Oidro-Frank&

Bowersbuch(1948)True &Stephenson (1951)True & Stephenson (195 1)

LeCron(1952)

LeCron(1952)

LeCroo(1952)McCranie, Crasilneck, &

Teter(I955)McCrarrie, Crasilneck, &

Teter(I955)McCranie & Crasilneck

(1955)Schwarz, BicMbrd. &

Rasmussen(1955)Mesel&Ledford(1959)

Edmonston(1960)

Forrest, Stevens, &Dimond(1973)

Raikov(1980)

Raikov(1982)

Raikov(1983)

\bung(1926)

%ung{1926)

Oakkebush, Polinkovskii,&Fundiller(l930)

StalnakerA Riddle (1 932)

Platonow(l933)Young (1940)

Kier(1945)Spiegel, Shor, & Fishman

(1945)Leeds (1949)

True (1949)

Kline (1950)

Dependent variable

Sucking and otherreflexes

"Fainting" duringhypnosis

Return of hemianopsi;"Infant" reflexes

(Babinski)EECInfant reflexes

(Babinski)Improvement of

refractive defectChildlike eye

movementsAblation of CREEC

Infant reflexes(Babinski)

Ablation of CR

EEC

EEG

Recovery of CR

Ablation of CR

Infant reflexes

Infant reflexes

EEG

Stanford-Binet

Recall of childhoodevents

Stanford-Binet

Recall of past events inschool (at least 1year prior tohypnosis)

Stanford-BinetStanford-Binet

Stanford-BinetStanford-Binet

Stanford-Binet(Vocabulary)

Recall of day of weekduring childhood

Otis

Comment on methods

Physiological processes

A f = 1

AT- 1

j ^V = 1 , self-report only#=3, no controls

TV = 6, within subjectN = 6, within subject

N= 1

N= 1

JV=2N** 10, within subject

N= 10, within subject

N=6

ff =5, within subject

2 hypnotized and 2waking controlsubjects


JV= 1

N = 10, within subject,no child norms

2 hypnotized subjects,within subject, 2actors and 2 low-susceptible controls,no child norms

5 hypnotized and 10control subjects, nostatistics

Cognitive and memory processes

1 hypnotized, 2 wakingcontrol subjects

2 hypnotized subjects,within subject

N=l

Jv~= 12, within subject

JV=39 hypnotized and 7 role-

playing subjectsJV=1N=l

N-t

N = SO, within subject

N - 10, within subject

Adequatecontrols?

No

No

NoNo

NoNo

No

No

NoNo

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

NoNo

NoNo

No

No

No

Regressedsubject age

appropriate?

Yes

Yes

YesYes

NoYes

Yes

Yes

YesNo

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

YesNo

YesNo

No

Yes

Yes

Regressed subjectmore age

appropriate thancontrols?

None

None

NoneNone

NoneNone

None

None

NoneNone

None

None

None

No

Yes

None

None

None

Yes

No

None

None

None

NoneNo

NoneNone

None

None

None


Table 1 (continued)

Study

Sarbin(l950)Best & Michaels (1954)

Meset&Ledford(1959)

Reiff&Scheerer(1959)



Barber(1961)

Barber(l961)

Hoskovec&Horvai(1963)

Greenleaf(1969)O'Connell, Shor, & Orne

(1970)

O'Connell, Shor, & Orne(1970)

Bynum(I977)

O'Brien etal. (1977)

Card & Kurtz (1979)

Roberts (1984)

Silverman & Retzlaff(in press)

Parrish, Lundv, &Leibowitz(i969)

Asher, Barber, & Spanos(1972)— two studies

Leibowitz, Graham, &Parrish {1 972)

Porter. Woodward, Bisbee,&Fenker(1972)

Per ry&Chisholm( 1973)

Walker. Garrett, & Wallace(1976)

Wallace(I978)

Dependent variable

Stanford-BinetRecall of day of week

during childhoodRecall of day of week

during childhoodPiagetian and other

tasks


Recall of childhoodevents


Otis

Speech patterns

Piagetian tasksRecall of childhood

events

Piagetian and othertasks

Mora! reasoning

Kohlberg's moralreasoning

Stanford-Binet

Vane KindergartenTest and Piagetiantasks

Piagetian tasks

Ponzo/Poggendorfillusions


Size constancy

Ponzo illusion


Eidetic imagery

Eidetic imagery

Comment on methods

Cognitive and memory processes

N = 12, within subjectJV= 5

2 hypnotized and 2control subjects

5 hypnotized and 1 5control subjects, poorchild norms

5 hypnotized subjects

5 hypnotized and 1 5control subjects

N = 9, within subject

9 hypnotized and 9 task-motivated subjects

10 hypnotized and 10role-playing subjects

N = 20, within subject10 hypnotized, 10

simulating, and 40role-playing subjectsand 30 children

10 hypnotized, 10simulating, and 40role-playing subjectsand 30 children

1 5 hypnotized and 1 5role-playing subjects

10 hypnotized, 10 task-motivated, and 10waking controlsubjects and 10children

8 hypnotized and 8simulating subjects

1 5 hypnotized and 1 5task-motivatedsubjects and 15children

6 groups of controls,including simulatingand child groups, andg hypnotized subjects

Perceptual processes

10 hypnotized and 10waking controlsubjects, repeatedmeasures

19 hypnotized, 19waking control, and19 simulating subjects

1 0 hypnotized and 5waking controlsubjects

8 hypnotized subjects.within subjects


20 hypnotized subjects.within subject


Adequatecontrols?

NoNo

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

NoYes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes


appropriate?

NoNo

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

NoNo

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes



NoneNone

No

Yes

None

Yes

None

No

No

YesNo

No

No

No

N»

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

(table continued')

46

Table 1 (continued)

Study

Spanos, Ansari, & Stamm(1979)

Crawford, Wallace,Katsuhiko, & Slater(1985)

Oakkebush, Polinkovskii,&Fundiller(1930)

Kier(1945)Spiegel, Shor, & Fishman

(1945)Bagman, Graham &

Leavitt(l947)

Mercer & Gibson ( 1 950)Taytor(1950)

Kline &Guze( 1951)Orne(1951)

Norgarb(1952)Kline&Haggerty<1953)Sarbin&Farberow(1952)Crasilneck* Michael

(1957)Raff &Scheerer( 1959)

Gordon & Freston ( 1 964)

Staples&Wilensky(1968)

O'Connell, Shor, & Orne(1970)

Solomon & Goodson(1971)

SchofieM&Reyher(l974)

ftllows&Creamer{1978)

Card & Kurtz (1979)

Nash, Johnson, & Tipion(1979)

Nash, Lynn, Stanley,Frauman, & Rhue(1985)

Dependent variable

Eidetic imagery

Eidetic-like imagery

Rorschach

RorschachKoh block test.

RorscbachRorschach,

Goodenoughdrawings

RorschachGoodenough drawings

HTPRorschach,

Goodenoughdrawings, TAT

RorschachTATRorschachBender-Gestalt

Word association,Hollow Tlibe Test

Word association

Rorschach

Word association,Hollow Tube Test

Rorschach

Rorschach

Draw a person

Draw a person,Bender-GestaH

Interpensonallyrelevant affect

loterpersonallyrelevant affect

MICHAEL NASH

Comment on methods

Perceptual processes

60 hypnotized subjects

Three experiments:hypnotized age-regressed, hypnosis-only, and wakingsubjects

Personality processes

AT= 1

AT= 1A f = l

N=\

A'=l1 2 hypnotized subjects,

within subjectN=]10 hypnotized subjects,

within subject

N=lJV-1N=210 hypnotized subjects,

within subject5 hypnotized and 1 S

control subjects, nochild group or norms

10 subjects; withinsubject; age-regressed,waking, role-playingchild, and hypnosisonly

6 hypnotized subjects(poorly screened forhypnotizability) and 3simulating subjects

10 hypnotized, 10simulating, and 40role-playing subjectsand 30 children

6 hypnotized and 7waking controlsubjects, 13Rorschach protocolswhen subjects werechildren

10 hypnotized and 10simulating subjects,within subject andbetween groups

20 hypnotized and 20control subjects




Adequatecontrols?

Yes

Yes

No

NoNo

No

NoYes

NoYes

NoNoNoYes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes


appropriate?

No

Yes

Yes

NoYes

Yes

YesNo

YesNo

YesYesNoNo

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes



No

No

None

NoneNone

None

NoneNone

NoneNone

NoneNoneNoneNone

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Note. EEC = electroencephalogram; CR = conditioned response; HTP = House-Tree-Person lest; TAT - Thematic Apperception Test


Table 2Research Findings Far and Against the General Regression Hypothesis According to Type of DependentMeasure Examined and Type of Experimental Design Used

Type of dependent measures

Physiological processes(20 studies)

Cognitive and memory processes(28 studies)

Perceptual processes(10 studies)

Personality processes(22 studies)

For

6

2

0

7

N= 1 studies

Against

0

2

0

1

N>

For

8

7

0

1

1 and inadequatecontrols"

Against

6

7

0

2

A';

For

0

0

3

2

> 1 and adequatecontrols"

Against

0

10

7

9

Note. Studies were designated as supporting the general regression hypothesis if hypnotically age-regressed response was more childlike than controlresponse(Parrish, Lundy, & Leibowitz, 1969, criterion). If inadequate or no controls were used, the study was designated as supporting the hypothesisif the authors claimed that hypnotically age-regressed response was childlike."The adequacy of experimental controls was assessed according to guidelines suggested by Barber (1961, 1962, 1965), O'Connell, Shot, & Orne(I970),and0me(l971, 1979).

regression, (a) enhanced recall of remote events and (b) rein-statement of earlier cognitive processes.

Enhanced Recall of Remote Events

Although Young (1926), Stalnaker and Riddle (1932), True(1949), and Reiff and Scheerer (1959) reported dramatic in-creases in recall of childhood events for hypnotically age-re-gressed subjects, serious methodological weaknesses have beendocumented (Barber, 1962; O'Connell et al., 1970), Indeed, in-vestigators who have carefully used conditions in which the ex-perimenters do not know the hypotheses and proper motiva-tional control groups have found no evidence for increased ac-curacy of recall of childhood events uniquely attributable tohypnotic-age-regression procedures (Barber, 1961; Best & Mi-chaels, 1954;Mesel&Ledford, 1959; O'Connell etal,, 1970).

Typical of this research was a series of studies examining theability of hypnotically age-regressed adults to accurately recallthe day of the week on which events in their childhood oc-curred. True (1949) regressed 50 hypnotic subjects to Christ-mas Day and to their birthdays at the ages of 10, 7, and 4 years.In 81% of the cases, subjects were able to correctly identify theday of the week on which these events occurred. Four subse-quent studies, however, found hypnotically regressed subjectsunable to correctly identify days of the week beyond chance(Barber, 1961; Burke, in Barber, 1961; Best & Michaels, 1954;Reiff & Scheerer, 1959). O'Connell et al. (1970) pointed out thatan important feature of True's testing procedure was that thehypnotist/experimenter was aware of the correct date whenquestioning the hypnotized subject. The inquiry progressed asfollows: "Was it Monday? Was it Tuesday? Was it Wednesday?. . ." Thus, verbal as well as nonverbal cues could be passedfrom experimenter to subject. Failure to replicate True's find-ings might be attributable to subsequent researchers' correctingthis methodological flaw.

Although a review of the literature on hypnotic recall of morerecently learned material (suggested hypermnesia) is beyond

the scope of this article, most laboratory evidence to date seemsto suggest that hypnosis does not yield meaningful increases inmemory (Kihlstrom, 1985; Orne, 1979; Smith, 1983).

Reinstatement of Earlier Cognitive Processes

Standardized test procedures (IQ, spelling, and otherachievement tests) have been used to determine whether thereis a return of childlike patterns of cognitive functioning duringhypnotic age regression. Typically, in the IQ studies, adult sub-jects are administered a standard IQ test while hypnotically ageregressed (e.g.. to the age of 7 years). Norms for the perfor-mance of 7-year-old children are then used to calculate an IQ.The IQ obtained during hypnosis is then compared with thesubject's normal waking IQ. The rationale for these studies isthat regressed and waking IQs should be similar if hypnotic ageregression is genuine. Four early studies on intellectual perfor-mance reported appropriate childlike IQ performances duringage-regression procedures (Gakkebush et al., I930;Kier, 1945;Platonow, 1933; Stalnaker & Riddle, 1932), but four other stud-ies found no evidence for this type of reinstatement (Leeds,1949; Spiegel, Shor, & Fishman, 1945; Young, 1926, 1940).Later, better controlled studies almost uniformly obtained neg-ative results, with hypnotically regressed subjects performingwell above child IQ norms (Card & Kurtz, 1979; Hoskovec &Horvai, 1963; Roberts, 1984;Sarbin, 1950). Kline (1950) foundthat 12 highly hypnotizable subjects performed age appropri-ately on an IQ test when they were regressed to 8, 10, and 15years of age. Barber (1961) essentially replicated Kline's (1950)study but added a nonhypnotized control group motivated withmoney. His results indicated that hypnotized subjects were nomore childlike than were motivated controls.

Some investigators turned to Piagetian-based measures ofcognitive and moral development. Again, there were some ini-tial positive findings, with regressed subjects apparently givingage-appropriate responses on Piagetian and other cognitive anddevelopmental tasks (Reiff & Scheerer, 1959). Greenleaf (1969)

48 MICHAEL NASH

Table 3Research Findings oj Studies Examining Hypnotic Age Regression According to Type and Adequacy of Experimental Design

Experimental design

Studies supportinghypothesis

No.

Studies not supportinghypothesis

No. %

JV= 1(18 studies)N> 1 and inadequate controls

(31 studies!A? > 1 and adequate controls

(31 studies)

Total

15

16

5

36

83

52

16

3

15

26

44

17

48

84

Note. Studies were designated as supporting the general regression hypothesis if hypnotically age-regressed response was more childlike than controlresponse (Parrish, Lundy, & Leibowitz, 1969, criterion). If inadequate or no controls were used, the study was designated as supporting thehypothesis if the authors claimed that hypnotically age-regressed response was childlike, *2(2, N = 80) = 21.675, p < .00005.

used 20 subjects as their own controls. The subjects were ad-

ministered four Kolberg developmental tasks under conditions

of simulation (faking hypnosis) and hypnotic age regression (to

4 years of age). The performance of hypnotically age-regressed

subjects was significantly different from that of actual 4-year-

old children. There was, however, a greater mean number of

generally childish responses in hypnosis than in the simulation

condition. Greenleaf embraced these findings as evidence of a

mixed adult/child regression. The application of a within-sub-

ject design to the real-simulator paradigm compromises this

conclusion to some extent.

More rigorously designed studies, using more exact child-

normed data, found age-regressed cognitive and moral perfor-

mance to be different from that of children and to be essentially

adult in nature. Any childlike quality to the hypnotically re-

gressed performance was matched or even exceeded by moti-

vated controls who were not hypnotized (Bynum, 1977;

O'Brien etal., 1977;O'Connelletal., 1970; Roberts, 1984; Sil-

verman & Retzlatf, in press). As Table 2 shows, all 10 ade-

quately designed studies on reinstatement of cognitive process

obtained negative results.

Perceptual Processes

Another tack pursued by recent investigators has been to

probe the perceptual processes of hypnotically age-regressed

subjects to determine whether there is a return of childlike per-

ceptual faculties. The first important study in this tradition

(Parrish et al., 1969) appeared to suggest that hypnotically age-

regressed subjects responded to the Ponzo illusion in a manner

typical of children. Task-motivated control subjects were not

able to match this performance. Four subsequent attempts have

failed, however, to replicate these findings; in these four studies,

regressed subjects' performance on the Ponzo illusion con-

formed to a familiar pattern—different from children and sim-

ilar to motivated control subjects (Asher, Barber, & Spanos,

1972; Perry & Chisholm, 1973; Porter, Woodward. Bisbee, &

Fenker, 1972).

A second series of studies generated renewed interest in per-

ceptual processes. Walker, Garrett, and Wallace (1976) rea-

soned that eidetic imagery is relatively common in children but

uncommon in adults. They proposed to determine whether ei-

detic imagery could be reinstated during hypnotic age regres-

sion in adults who were not eidetic. Hypnotic-age-regression

suggestions were administered to 20 highly hypnotizable adults

who had shown no signs of eidetic imagery in pretesting. Of

these 20 subjects, 2 (10%) displayed eidetic imagery in the age-

regression condition. (Walker et al. claimed that about 10% of

children are eidetic.) Wallace (1978) successfully replicated

these findings with 24 hypnotizable adults; he found no eidetic

imagers among nonhypnotized task-motivated adults. Spanos,

Ansari, and Stam (1979), however, were unable to find a single

eidetic imager among 60 highly hypnotizable subjects. Citing

developmental norms, they challenged the assumption that any

children are actually eidetic imagers.

In three subsequent experiments, Crawford, Wallace, Kat-

suhiko, & Slater (1985) found eidetic-like imagery during hyp-

nosis in high- but not low-hypnotizable subjects, thus replicat-

ing and extending the work of Walker et al. (1976) and Wallace

(1978). Crawford et al. found, however, that suggestions for age

regression during hypnosis were not necessary for production

of the eidetic-like imagery; hypnosis alone was sufficient. They

concluded that hypnotically age-regressed subjects in these and

other studies experienced eidetic-like imagery, not because of a

return of childhood functioning but because hypnosis itself may

have a facilitative effect on imaginal processing of information,

with a shift from a sequential, verbal, and logical mode during

waking state to a more visual, holistic style during hypnosis.

This finding is consistent with a psychoanalytic formulation of

hypnosis as ego regression, but it fails to support the hypothesis

that hypnotic age regression enables subjects to experience a

reinstatement of functioning specific to the suggested age. One

supposes that suggestions to regress to any age would result in

eidetic-like imagery for some subjects, as long as they are hyp-

notized.

Personality Processes

Another sphere in which childlike functioning might be man-

ifested is psychological assessment measures. When child

norms are available, it is possible to compare the performance

of hypnotically age-regressed and waking control subjects with


that of actual children. Some early studies using the Rorschach,

Thematic Apperception Test, House-Tree-Person Test, Bender-

Gestalt Test, and other projective tests seemed to suggest that

the psychological protocols of age-regressed subjects are similar

to those of actual children (Bergman, Graham, & Leavitt, 1947;

Gakkebush et al., 1930; Kline &Guze, 1951; Kline & Haggerty,

1953; Mercer & Gibson, 1950;Norgarb, 1952;Reiff&Scheerer,

1959). All but one of these studies, however, involved observa-

tions of a single subject, sometimes without the minimal pre-

caution of the subject's acting as his or her own control. Later

studies that used appropriate within-subject, real-simulator, or

task-motivated control procedures usually found the psycho-

logical protocols of age-regressed and motivated subjects to be

easily distinguishable from those of actual children (Crasilneck

& Michael, 1957; Gordon & Preston, 1964; O'Connell et al.,

1970; Orne, 1951; Sarbin & Farberow, 1952; Schofleld & Rey-

her, 1974; Staples & Wiiensky, 1968; Taylor, 1950). For mea-

sures on which regressed performance was indeed childlike,

motivated controls did just as well. In one study, test perfor-

mance of hypnotically age-regressed subjects was significantly

different from that of subjects simulating hypnosis, but it was

also significantly different from that of children (Fellows &

Creamer, 1978). In another recent investigation, simulators

were actually more childlike than hypnotically age-regressed

subjects were, although again both groups differed from actual

children (Gard & Kurtz, 1979).

According to Kihlstrom (1985), the only adequately designed

studies that present some evidence for a more complete repro-

duction of childlike personality functioning during hypnotic

age regression were carried out by Nash, Johnson, and Tipton

(1979) and Nash, Lynn, Stanley, Frauman, and Rhue (1985).

They gave hypnotized and simulating subjects suggestions to

regress to the age of 3 years and asked them to imagine them-

selves in various home situations. They used dependent mea-

sures derived from object relations theory and germane to the

interpersonal, affect-laden experience of the subject to index the

regressive component of responses. Specifically, the experimen-

tal procedures assessed the subject's way of relating to his or her

transitional objects (teddy bears, blankets, and so on). The way

children interact with their transitional objects is well-defined:

(a) The transitional object is necessary at times of loneliness or

depression (spontaneity); (b) other objects are not accepted or

required (specificity); (c) the transitional object is excitedly cud-

dled, loved, and sometimes mutilated (intensity; Gaddini &

Gaddini, 1970; Rudhe & Ekecrantz, 1974; Winnicott, 1953).

The hypnotically age-regressed subjects in the Nash, Johnson,

et al. (1979) and Nash, Lynn, et al. (1985) studies behaved in a

manner roughly appropriate to 3-year-old children across all

three aspects of interaction with the transitional object. The

performance of simulators was significantly different from

childhood norms and was significantly different from the per-

formance of the hypnotically age-regressed subjects. Nash,

Johnson, et al. (1979) and Nash, Lynn, et al. (1985) suggested

that under some circumstances, there may be a partial reinstate-

ment of interpersonally relevant affective processes during hyp-

notic age regression.

But a follow-up study by Nash, Drake, Wiley, Khalsa, and

Lynn (1986) denned some limitations on the nature of the pre-

sumed regression. To determine whether the transitional object

reported by a hypnotically age-regressed subject was the one the

subject actually had as a child, Nash, Drake, et al. indepen-

dently interviewed the mothers of both the hypnotized and con-

trol subjects used in the Nash, Lynn, et al. < 1985) study. Despite

the similarity of children in their emotional response to transi-

tional objects, hypnotized subjects were significantly less able

than waking control subjects to correctly identify the specific

transitional object used by them as children (23% accuracy for

hypnotized subjects vs. 70% accuracy for control subjects). Fur-

ther, all recollections obtained during hypnosis were incorpo-

rated into posthypnotic recollections, regardless of accuracy.

Nash, Drake, et al. concluded that hypnotic age regression may

enhance access to important emotional material but in no way

implies an accurate reliving of a specific event.

Overview of Hypnotic-Age-Regression Research

Tables 2 and 3 summarize the findings of all 80 hypnotic-age-

regression studies reviewed here. As Table 3 illustrates, there is

a significant relation between experimental methodology and

research findings on hypnotic age regression. Eighty-three per-

cent of one-subject studies, 52% of inadequately controlled

multiple-subject studies, and only 16% of adequately designed

multiple-subject studies support the Parrish et al. (1969) cri-

teria for genuine regression. This distribution of findings across

methodologies is significantly different from chance, x2(2, N ~

80) = 21.675, p < .00005, with positive findings being more

frequently claimed in poorly controlled studies.

The five positive findings in adequately controlled studies

must be carefully examined. Three of the positive findings are

in the perceptual sphere. One of these (the Ponzo illusion; Par-

rish et al., 1969) failed to replicate, despite four attempts. The

other two positive findings in perception were in studies of ei-

detic imagery. Crawford et al. (1985) found the appearance of

eidetic-like imagery not to be a manifestation of returned child-

hood perceptual faculties but a general effect of hypnosis as it

affects the subject's mode of processing information. Finally, in

the area of personality, the Nash, Johnson, et al. (1979) and

Nash, Lynn, et al. (1985) studies appear to stand alone as evi-

dence for reinstatement of childhood affective functioning, with

the proviso that the regression does not involve the reliving of

a past event. But, as with eidetic imagery, the enhanced access

to emotion observed in these two studies might have been due

to a general effect of hypnosis rather than a return of childlike

functioning. Thus, it is not certain that group differences in the

two studies can be attributed to a literal reinstatement of child-

like modes of affective expression among hypnotically age-re-

gressed subjects, as originally claimed by Nash, Johnson, et al.

and by Nash, Lynn, et al.

Discussion

The thrust of this review is that there is no evidence for the

idea that hypnosis enables subjects to accurately reexperience

the events of childhood or to return to developmentally previ-

ous modes of functioning. If there is anything regressed about

hypnosis, it does not seem to involve the literal return of a past

psychological or physiological state, as suggested by Erickson

and Kubie (1941) and Weitzenhoffer and Andre (1957). Across

50 MICHAEL NASH

physiological, cognitive, perceptual, and personality processes,

Parrish et al.'s {1969) criteria are not satisfied in well-designed

studies: Hypnotically regressed subject response does not re-

semble that of children, and when it does, waking control sub-

jects can do just as well. Thus, the position taken by two early

reviewers (Gebhard, 1961;Yates, 1961), that evidence for genu-

ine regressions might yet be uncovered, has been frustrated by

25 years of negative findings. It is Barber's position, as stated in

his 1962 review, that seems justified: Hypnotically age-re-

gressed subjects do not transcend normal volitional capacities

to behave like children. We must note here that in virtually ev-

ery area of hypnosis in which the issue of transcending voli-

tional capacity has been addressed, adequately motivated con-

trol subjects are capable of replicating the behavior of hypno-

tized individuals.

Although it is impossible to prove the null hypothesis (that

there is no regression in hypnosis), the asymmetry between re-

ports of negative and positive findings in the hypnotic-age-re-

gression literature is certainly remarkable. But my position is

further buttressed by studies that have reproduced the earlier

"positive" findings and shown them to be the result of motiva-

tional factors unrelated to hypnosis (Barber, 1961, reproducing

Kline's, 1950, results; O'Connell et al., 1970, reproducing Reiff

& Sheerer's, 1959, results). Table 3 underscores the methodo-

logical problems of studies claiming positive findings and fur-

ther suggests that design considerations explain early claims of

genuine regression. There is a significant relation between ade-

quacy of design and study outcome, with claims for positive

findings almost entirely limited to one-subject or inadequately

controlled multiple-subject studies, x2(2,N- 80) = 21.675, p <

.00005.

The only replicated positive findings are the eidetic-like imag-

ery studies (Crawford et al., 1985; Walker et al., 1976; Wallace,

1978) and the Nash, Johnson, et al. (1979) and Nash, Lynn, et

al. (1985) studies on interpersonal and affective modes of re-

sponding. Given that the effects observed in these studies might

not be a function of age-regression procedures, they cannot be

interpreted as supporting the idea that hypnosis can facilitate a

literal reinstatement of developmentally former modes of physi-

ological or psychological functioning or both. In fact, both

Crawford et al. (1985) and Nash, Drake, et al. (1986) dropped

this claim. As Spanos et al. (1979) noted, there is a characteris-

tic pattern to hyprtotic-age-regression research. An early study

reports some sort of dramatic reinstatement of childlike pro-

cesses. But later, more carefully controlled studies either fail to

replicate these findings or demonstrate that they are probably

due to demand characteristics. Just as hypnotically suggested

amnesia, deafness, blindness, and anesthesia are not equivalent

to their organic counterparts, hypnotic age regression does not

appear to be a return of childhood or a return of any particular

component of childhood response. If regression is denned as the

extent to which hypnotic subjects conform to childhood norms

and control subjects do not (Parrish et al., 1969), there is no

evidence that this type of regression is a function of hypnosis.

Although a comprehensive treatment of the matter is beyond

the scope of this article, I must note here that the study of regres-

sion during hypnosis need not involve suggested age changes at

all. A growing literature has examined whether there is some-

thing primitive or regressed about the hypnotic experience itself

(without suggested age regression). These investigations do not

claim a return of childhood functioning; more modestly, they

assert that some aspects of hypnotic response are similar to

manifestations of primitive thinking in a nonhypnotized adult

population. In other words, hypnotized subjects are not adults

who go back in time but adults who experience a shift toward

more prelogical, primary process modes of thinking. Here the

regression is topographic rather than temporal (S. Freud, 1917/

1953; Jackson, 1969). Indeed, some evidence suggests that dur-

ing hypnosis, there is an increase in primary process thinking

and a more spontaneous and intense expression of affect, un-

burdened by logic and sequential thinking (Fromm, Ober-

lander, Gruenewald, 1970; Gill &Brenman, 1959;Gruenewald,

Fromm, & Oberlander, 1979; Lavoie & Sabourin, 1976; Levin

& Harrison, 1976; Nash, Johnson, et al., 1979; Nash, Lynn, et

al., 1985; Orne, 1959; Shor, 1979). As noted earlier, the work of

Crawford et al. (1985) and Wallace (1978) on eidetic-like imag-

ery could be interpreted as suggesting that there is something

primitive or different about thinking during hypnosis and that

this involves a shift from sequential, logical thinking to more

visual, holistic thinking.

Although hypnotically regressed subjects may undergo dra-

matic changes in demeanor and subjective experience, their per-

formance is not accurately childlike. In fact, equally dramatic

and subjectively compelling portrayals are given by hypnotized

subjects who are told to progress to an age of 70 or 80 years

(Kline, 1951; Rubenstein & Newman, 1954). Highly hypnotiz-

able subjects also give believed-in and convincing renditions of

prenatal life or even past incarnations (Bernstein, 1956; Kelsey,

1953; Wilson, 1982). Hypnotic age regression may be of the

same ilk as hypnotic age progression or past-life regression: It

elicits a profoundly believed-in experience that may have im-

portant diagnostic and therapeutic properties and may, because

it is hypnosis, involve a different mode of processing informa-

tion, (e.g., primary process mentation), but it does not seem to

involve a bonafide return to or reinstatement of childhood

functioning.

References

Asher, L. M., Barber, T. X., Spanos, N. P. (1972). Two attempts to repli-cate the Parrish-Lundy-Leibowitz experiment on hypnotic age re-gressian. American Journal of'ClinicalHypnosis, 14, 178-183.

Balint, M. (1968). The basic fault. London: Tavistock.Barber, T. X. (1961). Experimental evidence for a theory of hypnotic

behavior: II. Experimental controls in hypnotic age regression. Inter-

national Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 9,181-193.Barber, T. X. (1962). Hypnotic age regression: A critical review. Psycho-

somatic Medicine, 24, 286-299.

Barber, T. X. (1965), Experimental analysis of "hypnotic" behavior: A

review of recent empirical findings. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,70, 132-154.

Bergman, M. S., Graham, H., & Leavitt, H. G. (1947). Rorschach ex-

ploration of consecutive hypnotic chronological age level regression.Psychosomatic Medicine, 9, 20-28.

Bernstein, M. (1956). The search for Bridey Murphy. New York: Dou-

bleday.Best, H. L., & Michaels, R. M. (1954, December). Living out "future"

experience under hypnosis. Science, 120, 1077.

Bynum, E. (! 977). Hypnotic age regression: An experimental investiga-tion. Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, 2394B-2395B.


Crasiineck, H. B., & Michael, C. (1957). Performance on the Bender

under hypnotic age regression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 54,

319-322.

Crawford, H. J., Wallace, B., Katsuhiko, N., & Slater, H. (1985). Ei-

detic-like imagery in hypnosis: Rare but there. Unpublished manu-

script.

Dasen, P. R. (1977). Piagetian psychology: Cross cultural contributions.

Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

DeLong, R. N. (1958). The neurologic examination. New York: Hoeber.

Edmonston, W. E. (1960). An experimental investigation of hypnotic

age regression. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, i, 127-138.

Erickson, M. H. (1937). Development of apparent unconsciousness

during hypnotic reliving of a traumatic experience. Archives of Neuro-

logical Psychiatry, 38, 1282-1288.

Erickson, M. H., & Ruble, L. S. (1941). The successful treatment of a

case of acute hysterical depression. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 10,

583-609.

Fellows, B., & Creamer, M. (1978). An investigation of the role of hyp-

nosis, hypnotic susceptibility, and hypnotic induction in the produc-

tion or age regression, British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychol-

ogy. 17. 165-171.

Ford, L. F., & Yeager, C. L. (1948). Changes in EEC in subjects under

hypnosis. Diseases of the Nervous System, 9, 190-192.

Forrest, D., Stevens, R., & Dimond, S. (1973). Hypnotic age regression:

An experimental demonstration of functional ablation. Irish Journal

of Psychology, 2, 78-85.

Freud, S. (1953), A metaphysical supplement to the theory of dreams.

In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The standard edition of the complete

psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 14, pp. 222-235). Lon-

don: Hogarth. (Original work published 1917)

Freud, A. (1969). Difficulties in the path of psychoanalysis: A confronta-

tion of past with present viewpoints. New York: International Univer-

sities Press.

Fromm, E., Oberlander, M., & Gruenewald, D. (1970). Perceptual and

cognitive processes in different states of consciousness: The wakingstate and hypnosis. Journal of Protective Techniques and Personality

Assessment, 34, 375-387.

Fromm-Reichmann, F. (1950). Principles of intensive psychotherapy.

Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Gaddini, R., &Gaddini, E. (1970). Transitional objects and the process

of individuation. Journal of American Academy of Child Psychiatry,

9, 102-121.

Gakkebush, V. M., Polinkovskii, S. I., & Fundiller, R. I. (1930). Experi-

mental study of personality development by hypnotic inhibition.Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Library Bulle-

tin (Translation Series, Report No. TG-230-T-153).

Gard, B., & Kurtz, R. (1979). Hypnotic age regression and cognitive

perceptual tasks. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 21, 270-277.

Gebhard, J. W. (1961). Hypnotic age regression: A review. American

Journal of Clinical Hypnosis. 3,139-168.

Gidro-Frank, L., & Bowersbuch, M. K. (1948). A study of the plantar

response in hypnotic age regression. Journal of Nervous and Mental

Disease. 107, 443-458.

Gill, M. M., & Brenman, M. (1959). Hypnosis and related slates. New

"Vbrk: International Universities Press.

Glick, J. (1975). Cognitive development in cross-cultural perspective,

In F. D. Horowitz (Ed.), Review of child development research (Vol.4. pp. 595-654). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gordon, J. E., & Freston, M. (1964). Role-playing and age regression in

hypnotized and nonhypnotized subjects. Journal of Personality, 32,

411-419.

Greenleaf, E. (1969). Development stage regression through hypnosis.

American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis. 12. 20-36.

Gruenewald, D., Fromm, E., & Oberlander, M. I. (1979). Hypnosis and

adaptive regression: An ego-psychological inquiry. In E. Fromm &

R. Shor (Eds.), Hypnosis: Research developments and perspectives

(pp. 619-635). Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.

Hilgard, E. R., & Marquis, D. G. (1940). Conditioning and learning.

New York: Appleton-Century.

Hoskovec, J., & Horvai, I. (1963). Speech manifestations in hypnotic

age regression. Activitas Nervosa Superior, 5, 13-21.

Jackson, S. W. (1969). The history of Freud's concepts of regression.

Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 17, 743-784.

Jolowicz, E., & Heyer, G. (1931). Suggestion therapy and hypnosis and

hypnotherapy. London: Daniel.

Kelsey, D. (1953). Phantasies of birth and prenatal experiences recov-

ered from patients undergoing hypnoanalysis. Journal of Mental Dis-

ease, 99, 216-223.

Kier, G. (1945). An experiment in mental testing during hypnosis. Jour-

nal of Mental Science, 91, 346-352,

Kihlstrom, J. F. (1985). Hypnosis. Annual Review of Psychology, 36,

385-418.

Kline, M. V. (1950). Hypnotic age regression and intelligence. Journal

of Genetic Psychology, 77, 129-132.

Kline, M. V. (1951). Hypnosis and age progression: A case report. Jour-

nal of Genetic Psychology, 78, 195-206.

Kline, M. V", &Guze, H. (1951). The use of a projective drawing tech-

nique in the investigation of hypnotic age regression and progression.

British Journal of Medical Hypnosis, 3, 10-21.

Kline, M. V, & Haggerty, A. D. (1953). A hypnotic experimental ap-

proach to the genesis of occupational interests and choice. III. Hyp-

notic age regression and the TAT. A clinical case study in occupa-

tional identification. International Journal of Clinical and Experi-

mental Hypnosis, 1, 38-31.

Lavoie, G., & Sabourin, M. (1976). Hypnotizability as a function of

adaptive regression among chronic psychotic patients. International

Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 24, 238-257.

LeCron, L. M. (1952). A study of age regression under hypnosis. In

L. M. LeCron (Ed.), Experimental hypnosis (pp. 155-174). New^fork: Macmillan.

Leeds. M. (1949). An hypnotic regression series. Persons, I, 13-16.

Leibowitz, H. W., Graham, C., & Parrish, M. (1972). The effect of hyp-

notic age regression on size constancy. American Journal of Psychol-

ogy, 85. 102-121.

Levin, L. A., & Harrison, R. H. (1976). Hypnosis and regression in the

service of the ego. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental

Hypnosis, 24,400-418.

McCranie, E. J., & Crasiineck, H. B. (1955). The conditioned reflex in

hypnotic age regression. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Psy-

chopathology, 16, 120-123.

McCranie, E. J., Crasiineck, H. B., & Teter, H. R. (1955). The EEG in

hypnotic age regression. Psychiatric Quarterly, 29, 85-88.

Mercer, M., & Gibson, R. (1950). Rorschach content in hypnosis:

Chronological age regression. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 6, 352-

358.

Mesel, E., & Ledford, F. F. (1959). The EEG during hypnotic age regres-

sion in epileptic patients. Archives of Neurology, 1,516-521.

Miller, S. A. (1976). Extinction of Piagetian concepts: An updating.

Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 22, 257-281.

Nash, M. R., Drake, S. D., Wiley, S., Khalsa, S., & Lynn, S. J. (1986),

The accuracy of recall by hypnotically age regressed subjects. Journal

of Abnormal Psychology, 95, 298-300.

Nash, M. R., Johnson, L. S., & Tipton, R. (1979). Hypnotic age regres-

sion and the occurrence of transitional object relationships. Journal

of Abnormal Psychology, SS, 547-555.

Nash, M. R., Lynn, S. J., Stanley, S., Frauman, D. C., & Rhue, J. (1985).

Hypnotic age regression and the importance of assessing interperson-

52 MICHAEL NASH

ally relevant affect. International Journal oj Clinical and Experimen-tal Hypnosis, 33, 224-235.

Norgarb, B. A, (1952). Rorschach psychodiagnosis in hypnotic regres-sion. In L. M. LeCron (Ed.), Experimental hypnnsis (pp. 178-214).New York: MacMillan.

O'Brien, R., Kramer, C., Chiglinsky, M., Stevens, G., Nunan, L., &

Fritzo, J. (1977). Moral development examined through hypnoticand task motivated age regression. A merican Journal of Clinical Hyp-nosis, 79.209-213.

O'Connell, D. N., Shor, R. E., & Orne, M. T. (1970). Hypnotic age re-

gression: An empirical and methodological analysis. Journal of Ab-normal Psychology, 76, 1-31.

Orne, M. T. (1951). The mechanisms of hypnotic age regression: Anexperimental study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 46,213-225.

Orne, M. T. (1959). The nature of hypnosis: Artifact and essence. Jour-nal oj Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 213-225.

Orne, M. T. (1971). The simulation of hypnosis: Why, how, what itmeans. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis,19, 183-210.

Orne, M. T. (1979). The use and misuse of hypnosis in court. Interna-tional Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 27, 311-341.

Papalia, D., & Bielby, D. (1974). Cognitive functioning in middle andold age adults: A review of research based on Piaget's theory. Hitman

Development, 17,424-443.Parrish, M., Lundy, R. M., Leibowitz, H. W. (1969). Effect of hypnotic

age regression on the magnitude of the Ponzo and Poggendorff illu-

sions. Journal oj'Abnormal Psychology, 74,693-698.

Perry, C. W., & Chisholm, W. (1973). Hypnotic age regression and thePonzo and Poggendorf illusions. International Journal of Clinical and

Experimental Hypnosis, 21, 192-204.

Perry, C., & Walsh, B. (1978). Inconsistencies and anomalies of responseas a defining characteristic of hypnosis. Journal of Abnormal Psychol-ogy, 87, 574-577.

Piaget, J.. & Inhelder. B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York:Basic Books.

Platonow, K. I. (1933). On the objective proof of the experimental per-sonality age regression. Journal of Genetic Psychology 9. 190-209.

Porter, J., Woodward, J., Bisbee, C, & Fenker, R. (1972). Effect of hyp-notic age regression on the magnitude of the Ponzo illusion. Journal

of Abnormal Psychology, 79, 189-194.

Raikov, V. L. (1980). Age regression to infancy by adult subjects in deep

hypnosis. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis. 22, 156-163.

Raikov, V. L. (1982). Hypnotic age regression to the neonatal period:

Comparisons with role playing. International Journal of Clinical andExperimental Hypnosis, 30, 108-116.

Raikov, V. L. (1983). EEC recordings of experiments in hypnotic ageregression. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 3, 115-132.

Reiff, R., & Scheerer, M. (1959). Memory and hypnotic age regression.

New York: International Universities Press.Roberts, D. (1984). Hypnotically induced age regression versus age re-

gression in response to task motivation instructions on five develop-mental tasks. Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 1594B.

Rubenstein, R., & Newman, R. (1954, April). The living out of "future"experiences under hypnosis. Science, 119, 472-473.

Rudhe, L., & Ekecrantz, L. (1974). Transitional phenomena. Ada

Psychialrica Scandinavica, 50. 381-400.

Sarbin, T. R. (1950). Mental age changes in experimental regression.Journal of Personality, 19, 221-228.

Sarbin, T. R. (1956). Physiological effects of hypnotic stimulation. InR. M. Dorcus (Ed.), Hypnosis and its therapeutic applications (pp.1-54). New York: McGraw,

Sarbin, T. R., & Farberow, N. L. (1952). Contributions of role-takingtheory: A clinical study of self and role. Journal of Abnormal Psychol-

ogy.*?. 117-225.

Schofield, L., & Reyher, J. (1974). Thematic productions under hypnot-ically aroused conflict in age regressed and waking states using the

real-simulator model. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. S3,130-139.Schwarz, B. E., Bickford, R. G., Rasmussen, W. C. (1955). Hypnotic

phenomena, including hypnotically activated seizures, studies with

the electroencephalogram. Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases,

122, 564-574.Shor, R. E. (1979). A phenomenological method for the measurement

of variables important to an understanding of the nature of hypnosis.

In E. Fromm & R. Shor (Eds.), Hypnosis: Developments in researchand new perspectives (pp. 105-135). New York: Aldine.

Silverman, P., & Retzlaff. P. (in press). Cognitive stage regression

through hypnosis: Are earlier cognitive stages retrievable? Interna-tional Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis.

Smith, M. C. (1983). Hypnotic memory enhancement: Does it work?Psychological Bulletin, 94, 387-407.

Solomon, D., & Goodson, D. F. (1971). Hypnotic age regression evalu-ated against a criterion of prior performance. International Journalof Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 19, 243-259.

Spanos, N. P., Ansari, F., & Stam, H. J. (1979). Hypnotic age regressionand eidetic imagery: A failure to replicate. Journal of Abnormal Psy-chology, 88, 88-91.

Spiegel, H., Shor, J., Fishman, S. (1945). An hypnotic ablation tech-

nique for the study of personality. Psychosomatic Medicine, 7, 273-278.

Spitz, R. (1965). The first year of life. New York: International Universi-ties Press.

Stalnaker, J. M., & Riddle, E. E. (1932). The effect of hypnosis on long-delayed recall. Journal of General Psychology, 6, 429-440.

Staples, E., & Wilensky, H. (1968). A controlled investigation of hyp-

notic age regression. Journal of Protective Techniques, 32, 246-252.Taylor, A. (1950). The differentiation between simulated and true hyp-

notic regression by figure drawings. Unpublished master's thesis, Col-lege of the City of New York.

True, R. M. (1949). Experimental control in hypnotic age regression.Science, 110, 583.

True, R. M., & Stephenson, C. (1951). Controlled experiments correlat-ing EEG, pulse, and plantar reflexes with hypnotic age regression and

induced emotional states. Personality, 1, 252-263.Tuttman, S. (1982). Regression: Curative factor or impediment in dy-

namic psychotherapy. In S. Slipp (Ed.), Curative factors in dynamic

psychotherapy (w>- 177-198). New York: McGraw-Hill.Walker, N. W., Garrett, J. B., & Wallace, B. (1976). Restoration of ei-

detic imagery via hypnotic age regression: A preliminary report.Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85, 335-337.

Wallace, B. (1978). Restoration of eidetic imagery via hypnotic age regres-sion: More evidence. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87,673-675.

Weitzenhoffer, A. M.. & Andre, M. (1957). General techniques of hypno-tism. New York: Grune & Stratton.

Wilson, I. (1982). Reincarnation? The claims investigated. New York:

Penguin Books.Winnicott, D. W. (1953). Transitional objects and transitional phenom-

ena: A study of the first not-me possession. International Journal of

Psychoanalysis. 34,89-97.Winnicott, D. W. (1971). Playing and reality. New York: Basic Books.Yates, A. J. (1961). Hypnotic age regression. Psychological Bulletin, 88,

429-440.Young, P. C. (1926). An experimental study of mental and physical

functions in the normal and hypnotic states: Additional results.

American Journal of Psychology, 37. 345-356.%ung, P. C. (1940). Hypnotic age regression—Fact or artifact? Journal

of Abnormal Psychology. 35, 273-278.

Received February 28,1986

Revision received October 4, 1986 "

What, if Anything, is Regressed About Hypnotic Age Regression? A …bromanfulksj/Nash - What if...

Documents

Transcript of What, if Anything, is Regressed About Hypnotic Age Regression? A …bromanfulksj/Nash - What if...